Critical Power Study of GT Winners

[42x16ss]

BTW, he is JV1973 I believe, not 1971.

Yep, it is - I'm on my iPhone on the train ATM. Can't find all the typos

 

[Saint Unix]

Put down Walsh's work of fiction and do some research on the effect increased hematocrit has on FTP and time to exhaustion. Then consider that Pantani's hematocrit was 60% or higher at times during a grand tour.

That may also requires basic numeracy skills, so don't get ahead of yourself

Never mind the fact that a minute and a half on a 1 hour climb is very little, especially considering one rider was one of the best climbers ever to ride a bike and was jacked up to 60% while the other is, for the sake of the argument, completely clean.

 

[Ferminal]

There's a big difference between some value being somewhat inaccurate and it's meaning nothing. Again, as you extrapolate to zero, the values are going to be less and less accurate, because the assumptions underlying the curve--that power equals anaerobic reserves over time--break down. E.g., there are limits to the rate at which anaerobic reserves can be tapped into. At longer intervals of time, those limits are not a factor, whereas at shorter periods they are. IOW, the curve suggests Froome has enough reserves so that if he could tap into them all at once, he could have such and such power at two minutes. But he can't necessarily mobilize them all in that period, whereas he can mobilize them, gradually, over a much longer period of time.

That does not mean that at other parts of the curve the assumptions may not be much more accurate. Even if you don't strictly buy the concept of CP, it's clear from any power curve that the decrease in power slows down as time is extended, to the point that we can estimate some value which is not much less than the value at one hour. Infinity isn't a problem here, if there isn't a genuine asymptope there is still a value at some very long period of time that can be estimated fairly accurately. And again, all riders are being treated the same. If, e.g., Horner's climbs at longer times are faster than Froome's, whereas the reverse is the case for shorter climbs, then one can definitely conclude--IF THOSE TIMES AND GRADIENTS ARE ACCURATE--that Froome has a higher anaerobic component and Horner a higher aerobic component. Even if there is no such thing as a CP.

To me, the significance of this study is that it takes into account an anaerobic component, and that different riders may have very different relative contributions from the aerobic and anaerobic components. This leads to predictions about how well they will do on short vs. long climbs, as well as, of course, speculation about what kind of doping they would be engaging in if they are doping.

And what I find most interesting, though not at all surprising, is that people get their panties all into a wad depending on where they stand on Froome and Horner. Mention the possibility that this suggests that your devil is clean and your hero is dirty, and the study becomes nonsense, automatically. Or conversely, if it supports that your hero is clean and your devil is dirty, the study is great. One can accept this method without being confined to particular conclusions about either. E.g., as I said earlier, there is a selection problem. Froome's ITT in the Vuelta suggests a higher CP than was calculated here. Also, there are no error estimates, which are particularly critical for calculating slope.

But CP assumes you can dump your AWC instantaneously. Of course that's not practically correct but if you drop that assumption then your CP and anything else you derive from it will have to be higher to compensate.

're the input data yes and if you think about the climbs and what they represent then they are skewed to deliver the ridiculous AWC for Contador and Froome. No Romme, no Arcalis. Measuring ventoux from Bedoin, PdBF and Verbier basically drive the whole thing but they are "special" and not average not to mention possibly overestimated at least in the former.

 

[MonkeyFace]

Source please?

It's garbage. Track riders are just as dirty and no road cyclist comes close to what they do aside from maybe pursuit. 1km stuff is not even in the same area code. A road cyclist would have a had time doing what Sir Chris can do with one leg for a minute.

 

[red_flanders]

All those guys were doped to the gills. Pantani probably the greatest climber ever, and recorded that time before the 50% hematocrit limit was put in place.

I would offer that it's probably an advantage not to have a hilly or even mountainous 200 km lead-in to the climb. Possibly you would be less fresh than a 1-hour TT effort. Maybe. Never mind that the times on climbs on TT's are always faster, independent of rider or course. See TT times up...well Ventoux and l'Alpe.

You're not seriously arguing that Froome's performance was legit, are you?

I want to apologize for my tone in this post. Unnecessary and rude to a new member. I'm sorry about that.

 

[42x16ss]

I want to apologize for my tone in this post. Unnecessary and rude to a new member. I'm sorry about that.

He's not new - Dave_1 has been a member longer than either of us. More than half of his posts have been made in the last week as well.

Draw your own conclusions

 

[Hugh Januss]

I want to apologize for my tone in this post. Unnecessary and rude to a new member. I'm sorry about that.

Dave_1 Dave_1 is offline
Member

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 77

New member? Or plant?

Edit:I see 42X12 or whatever beat me to the obvious conclusion.

 

[Ripper]

Trollin', trollin' trollin' for a good time

Trollayyyyy trollinator is trolling along the troll path.

F*ck. Nice obfuscation of the facts buddy ... but there's no wind up in you though, you're just a nit (but your posts were amusing) You need to work the craft a bit more ...

 

[happychappy]

Using eye measurement only the two Sky riders should be producing far less power than the other three, due to their incredibly skinny legs.

It doesn't work like that, cycling is an endurance sport - it isn't powerlifting. I can put out the same power as Cancellara and Martin, I can even put out the same power as Armstrong 1999. The difference is the duration I can hold that power. Climbing and Time Trialing are aerobic endurance, not muscular strength.
If it was as easy as more muscle=faster TT everyone would be doing leg presses all day.

And from the right angle Wiggins' legs aren't as skinny as you think: http://oi57.tinypic.com/j6ub2v.jpg

 

[Ferminal]

So apparently 21% of Contador's power on Verbier was anaerobic.

I think that represents a greater proportion of total power than Wiggins over 4km (if we assume Coggan's little effort has as much merit as this "study").

 

[Merckx index]

But CP assumes you can dump your AWC instantaneously. Of course that's not practically correct but if you drop that assumption then your CP and anything else you derive from it will have to be higher to compensate.

I’m really not sure what you’re saying here. What is AWC? Do you mean what the author calls AEC? And what do you mean by dumping it instantaneously? Do you mean using it all immediately? If you do, no, the approach used in this paper does not imply that assumption.

I’ll repeat: you don’t have to believe there is a true asymptote and a CP to accept that the decline in average power falls off with time—that is extremely well-established, I don’t know any exercise physiologist who would challenge it—and that any anaerobic contribution will further reduce that decline. That is the main point of the paper. Everything else is just haggling over the exact numbers and the way they fit the relationship.

It doesn't work like that, cycling is an endurance sport - it isn't powerlifting. I can put out the same power as Cancellara and Martin, I can even put out the same power as Armstrong 1999. The difference is the duration I can hold that power. Climbing and Time Trialing are aerobic endurance, not muscular strength.
If it was as easy as more muscle=faster TT everyone would be doing leg presses all day.

And from the right angle Wiggins' legs aren't as skinny as you think: http://oi57.tinypic.com/j6ub2v.jpg

You're making the mistake of comparing yourself to riders who are elite at these disciplines. You may have as much anaerobic power as they do, but not as much aerobic power. At the elite level, though, differences in aerobic power are not that great; anyone who can just finish with the pack has to have a pretty high V02max/kg or CP or FTP. If you have two riders who are about the same in that regards, then musculature will make the difference in TTng. The idea is that both riders can endure at near their top output, but the top output will be greater for the more muscled rider. That's why, again, the best TTers tend to be large. And that’s why steroids have long been used by all riders, climbers as well as TTers.

In order for less-muscled riders like Froome or Wiggins to be as good at TTng as Cancellara or Wiggins, they would have to have substantially greater sources of power than the latter two have, to overcome the fact that they have less muscle to make use of this power. And maybe they do. But Martin and Cancellara are at the peak of their discipline, and you don’t get there without exceptionally high aerobic power. So anyone who is going to stay with them with a less-muscled body is going to have to be a real freak.

Moreover, this paper suggests that Froome’s aerobic power is actually not as high at that of some other riders. On the contrary, it seems that much of Froome’s success is due to an unusually high anaerobic contribution. Possibly Wiggins is the same, and possibly as a result, both riders can get a little extra boost in a TT. But in any case, they are going to need a substantial advantage in energy sources, aerobic and/or anaerobic to compensate for the reduced musculature.

 

[Le breton]

It's garbage. Track riders are just as dirty and no road cyclist comes close to what they do aside from maybe pursuit. 1km stuff is not even in the same area code. A road cyclist would have a had time doing what Sir Chris can do with one leg for a minute.

It does not look like you are answering my question!

 

[nomapnocompass]

Coggan weighing in as well....

"Garbage in + overly-simplified model + misunderstanding of physiology = bad conclusions"

 

[Dave_1]

He's not new - Dave_1 has been a member longer than either of us. More than half of his posts have been made in the last week as well.

Draw your own conclusions

am not new, about 30 years following the sport. I'll go the 12 rounds with ANY of you on what's happened in the sport in races or outside of that, in doping and who did said, what, because of the time I've followed the sport.

 

[EnacheV]

Coggan weighing in as well....

"Garbage in + overly-simplified model + misunderstanding of physiology = bad conclusions"

But i guess Coggan is good when is validating your beliefs right?

 

[Dave_1]

Trollayyyyy trollinator is trolling along the troll path.

F*ck. Nice obfuscation of the facts buddy ... but there's no wind up in you though, you're just a nit (but your posts were amusing) You need to work the craft a bit more ...

how does pointing out a rider in 1994 with 8kg bike rode up Ventoux near end of a long ROAD STAGE in week two of TDF in 58 minutes compared to a different rider in 2013 with 6.8kg bike who rode up Ventoux near end of a long ROAD STAGE in week two of TDF in 59 minutes constitute trolling? The tenor of debate is Froome is a fraud doper. I merely point out the fact Froome is way slower than Pantani on EPO.

If pointing out these facts is trolling, fine..lock me and kick me out of clinic. I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they are NOT entitled to their own facts. Times up the Ventoux suggest Froome might be clean, not dirty, though his career trajectory I agree is extremely suspect and worthy if debate

 

[Mellow Velo]

Certainly sounds like the original Dave_1

In which case he's totally legit
Long, long term cycling aficionado.

Not an ardent Sky fan either.

Seems to me his points are valid.
So, if Pantani went 6-7% faster on a bike 12-15% heavier,
,without the aid of superior, accepted* technical/training methods,
(* if it is accepted that there have been any since 1994)
but with a HCT 15-20% above the legal limit, approximately how doped was
Chris Froome?

I've no idea how you figure that one out.

 

[Dave_1]

Certainly sounds like the original Dave_1

In which case he's totally legit
Long, long term cycling aficionado.

Not an ardent Sky fan either.

Seems to me his points are valid.
So, if Pantani went 6-7% faster on a bike 12-15% heavier,
,without the aid of superior, accepted* technical/training methods,
(* if it is accepted that there have been any since 1994)
but with a HCT 15-20% above the legal limit, approximately how doped was
Chris Froome?

I've no idea how you figure that one out.

thanks Mellow Velo. I will stop fight Froome's corner too hard..his progress is 100x more suspect than even Armstrong's. But we can't say he broke all records on climbs in 2013..he was way slower on 2 of the hills and crumbled on last mountain stage under Quintana pressure. It's off topic, but merits a separate thread..mainly who is avoiding races ..we should have a watch thread on that. Quintana never raced from Liege to TDF stage 1, so god knows what all he was doing in the 23 hours of the day he was completely off dope testing radars from 3rd week of April till start of July

 

[happychappy]

You're making the mistake of comparing yourself to riders who are elite at these disciplines.

My racing license reads "elite". What does yours say? The very point I was making was that average cyclists CAN compare themselves in terms of "muscular strength". Anyway, I wasn't comparing myself to them in terms of performance, I was giving a reason why larger muscles don't necessarily mean more power in endurance cycling (I'm not talking about sprinting, completely different).
An average cyclist (such as myself) can generate the power of Cancellara's outputs in a TT effort. The difference being the duration Mr. Average can maintain that power - or can't. That proves it isn't a "strength" issue.

And that’s why steroids have long been used by all riders, climbers as well as TTers.

Steroids in road cycling aren't used to gain muscle mass, they're used for faster recovery from aerobic endurance training so that they can go out and do more aerobic endurance training.
Gaining muscle mass in the legs isn't going to make you a faster Time Trialer.

 

[ralphbert]

Seems to me his points are valid.
So, if Pantani went 6-7% faster on a bike 12-15% heavier

Except pantani's bike was 6.9kg and froome's bike is 7.2kg. So no, not that valid.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/retro-pro-bike-marco-pantanis-1998-bianchi-mega-pro-xl-24877/

http://bicyclingaustralia.com.au/2013/11/spotlight-pinarello-dogma-651-think2

 

[Dave_1]

Put down Walsh's work of fiction and do some research on the effect increased hematocrit has on FTP and time to exhaustion. Then consider that Pantani's hematocrit was 60% or higher at times during a grand tour.

That may also requires basic numeracy skills, so don't get ahead of yourself

I wouldn't waste my time buying puff pieces on Sky, nor any team but I wouldn't trust you either. You need the fact FACTS. I will not repeat them. You have decided that despite the facts, Froome is suspect..not admitting that he is way slower than Pantani, which is what the FACTS are. Are you a case of cognitive dissonance from a failed alpha competitor who says or think "they must all be on drugs if I couldn't win"? Sore loser? How come simple facts like bike weights and times on stop watch are so difficult for you?

 

[happychappy]

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/retro-pro-bike-marco-pantanis-1998-bianchi-mega-pro-xl-24877/

I thought he Pantani was supposed to use 180mm cranks? Perhaps it was just a myth.

 

[King Boonen]

Personal insults people, lets not have another mass banning.

 

[Dave_1]

Except pantani's bike was 6.9kg and froome's bike is 7.2kg. So no, not that valid.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/retro-pro-bike-marco-pantanis-1998-bianchi-mega-pro-xl-24877/

http://bicyclingaustralia.com.au/2013/11/spotlight-pinarello-dogma-651-think2

1994 Sir. Not 1998. My comment was on 1994 TDF era

 

[del1962]

Except pantani's bike was 6.9kg and froome's bike is 7.2kg. So no, not that valid.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/retro-pro-bike-marco-pantanis-1998-bianchi-mega-pro-xl-24877/

http://bicyclingaustralia.com.au/2013/11/spotlight-pinarello-dogma-651-think2

Having read your first link, you will find that the weight is that of the commercialy available bike, not Froome's which would be close to UCI minimum for mountain stages

Here are some clues

Dura-Ace C24 wheels are usually Froome’s choice in in the mountains and Shimano’s alloy / carbon hybrid C50s seen here, for flatter stages.

The standard 65.1 Think 2 uses a Fizik Arione cx with carbon rails (205g). Froome favours the braided carbon railed Fizik Antares weighing just 135g.